Data and code from: Farm management and landscape context shape plant diversity at wetland edges in the prairie pothole region of Canada.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<b>Abstract from associated paper (</b><b>Farm management and landscape context shape plant diversity at wetland edges in the prairie pothole region of Canada, Ecological Applications in press).</b>Evaluating the impacts of farming systems on biodiversity is increasingly important given the need to stem biodiversity loss, decrease fossil fuel dependency, and maintain ecosystem services benefiting farmers. We recorded woody and herbaceous plant species diversity, composition, and abundance in 43 wetland‐adjacent prairie remnants beside crop fields managed using conventional, minimum tillage, organic, or perennial cover (wildlife-friendly) land management in the Prairie Pothole Region. We used a hierarchical framework to estimate diversity at regional and local scales (gamma, alpha), and how these are related through species turnover (beta diversity). We tested the expectation that gamma richness/evenness and beta diversity of all plants would be higher in remnants adjacent to perennial cover and organic fields than in conventional and minimum tillage fields. We expected the same findings for plants providing ecosystem services (bee‐pollinated species) and disservices (introduced species). We predicted similar relative effects of land management on alpha diversity, but with the expectation that the benefits of organic farming would decrease with increasing grassland in surrounding landscapes. Gamma richness and evenness of all plants were highest for perennial cover, followed by minimum tillage, organic, and conventional sites. Bee‐pollinated species followed a similar pattern for richness, but for evenness organic farming came second, after perennial cover sites, followed by minimum tillage and conventional. For introduced species, organic sites had the highest gamma richness and evenness. Grassland amount moderated the effect of land management type on all plants and bee‐pollinated plant richness, but not as expected. The richness of organic sites increased with the amount of grassland in the surrounding landscape. Conversely, for conventional sites, richness increased as the amount of grassland in the landscape declined. Our results are consistent with the expectation that adopting wildlife‐friendly land management practices can benefit biodiversity at regional and local scales, in particular the use of perennial cover to benefit plant diversity at regional scales. At more local extents, organic farming increased plant richness, but only when sufficient grassland was available in the surrounding landscape; organic farms also had the highest beta diversity for all plants and bee‐pollinated plants. Maintaining native cover in agroecosystems, in addition to low‐intensity farming practices, could sustain plant biodiversity and facilitate important ecosystem services.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».